|
|
Turing
and the Computer |
| To Andrew Hodges. "Boolean
castles in the air" http://www.ivorcatt.org/icr-ew47boole.pdf "Turn a Great Man into a homosexual (T E Lawrence or Montgomery) or a homosexual into a Great Man (Turing). Both serve the same purpose; the onward march of sodomy and against the family." A couple of years ago, I sat next to Lord Montgomery at Trinity College High Table. I regailed him with stories about T E Lawrence, whom my father knew. "T E Lawrence as I knew him." . I said that since he was a great man, there were moves to call him a homosexual. Montgomery replied; "They're saying that about my father!" I said; "I know. That's why I am telling you about Lawrence." hansard
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1965/may/24/sexual-offences-bill-hl The
Sexual Offences Bill http://1967andallthat.blogspot.com/2007/05/sexual-offences-bill.html I suppose "if he protests too much", then he must be a cupboard homosexual." If not, then he is a homosexual. I have just read through your book "Alan Turing. The Enigma," and find that we are diametrically opposed on more than one subject. Your book is extensively researched, and impressive. and I will deal with homosexuality first. I note that you were a member of "Gay Rights", and that your websites have a great deal devoted to homosexuality. Outgay . A campaigner for homosexual rights like you could not be expected to underrate the achievements of a homosexual like Turing. I personally have been very much concerned about the attack on the family as an institution, and the dire results that are becoming ever more apparent. This attack was primarily launched by radical feminists, but was aided by the homosexual lobby. For four years I published a journal on this problem. Ill Eagle . The dilution of marriage by "civil partnerships" and the like is very damaging to the family. This dimension does nhot receive mention in your book, and could not be expected. It is too far removed from the story of Turing. However, I wonder whether you have ever thought about a possible opposition between "Gay Rights" and the stability of the family. I suspect that as can be expected of a victimised minority, you will not have taken the broader view. I wonder about your ideas on the alleged link between homosexuality and paedophilia, as discussed by Lynette Burrows in her book "The Fight for the Family". The hyperlink shows that , with the hounding of Lynette, homosexual victimhood is today in doubt, and possibly reversed. "Boolean
castles in the air" http://www.ivorcatt.org/icr-ew47boole.pdf
After homosexuality and credit for the computer, thirdly comes "Artificial Intelligence". Your book frequently refers to Turing's devotion to the idea, and to his close association with Professor Donald Michie. You seem to be in favour of Turing's incessant thought and talk about machine intelligence. You will not know about the malign side of this obsession, which is a major reason why my second book is called "Computer Worship", pub. Pitman 1973. I was interviewed by Narud, Head of R&D when I worked for him in Motorola. I told him that the first transistorised machine that I worked on, Siriuis, which receives mention in your book, contained "Neuron" logic gates. He perked up his ears at this, and I then told him that our logic gates were "bad news". Later he instructed my boss to fire me. My boss had to leave Motorola because he did not fire me. This is an indicator of the powerfulness of the meta-religion, Computer Worship, which dogged the computer industry and inhibited architectural advance, as I once published. For architactural advance away from von Neumann, see for example "The Kernel Machine" . If the von Neumann computer was so powerful that it could think, what need was there for improvement? Fifty years later we are still stuck with the "von Neumann bottleneck" between processor and store, and the building of a computer with more than one central processor is still not allowed. Array processors may not be built, very much because of "machine intelligence" propaganda. I went to see the deputy editor of "New Scientist" when he was about to publish my 1969 article "Dinosaur among the Data?" . He was concerned when he realised that my article was not about the fashionable subject; "Can computers think?", but fortunately it was too late for him to cut my article out of the next edition. Michie was in the news for getting a computer to tell the difference between a cup and a saucer, and he promised great further advances in a year, which it was obvious to me he would not achieve. A year later I wrote to him to ask about it, and he replied that he had not made the further advance but had built a system where the computer could rotate the object being investigated.
Physics and Technology. You work for Penrose, and think highly of him. For many years I have regarded Hawking, Penrose, Paul Davies and Gribbin as representing the obstruction in the way of publication in science. "Modern Physics" reigns supreme, controlling all journals and college courses. "Modern Physics does not know of the impedance of free space, 377 ohms, or of the works of Oliver Heaviside. "The Catt Question" , first dscovered in 1982, and "Theory C" , discovered in 1976, may not be published in any journal in the world. Paul Davies was instrumental in blocking publication of my article "The Sign of Time" in the New Scientist . | |
|
| |